Topic: Sarah Palin: Definitions of Conservative vs. Liberal -- from her book, "Going Rogue"
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Except of course we have an actual system in practice to draw results from, we have double digit economic increases yearly, a gigantic pool of graduates yearly that dwarfs anything from any other single country a growing number of scientific patents, a skyrocketing international trade and a society that brings millions of people out from poverty on a daily basis all done from a pragmatic and detailed understanding on how the different parts of government, state, society and the economy interreact with each that as Paul Kennedy wrote in Rise and Fall of the Great Powers showing a far more comprehensive long term national policy then that of coming out from either Moscow or Washington, no government can accomplish what they did with a political system split down the middle on partisan lines or maintain a consistent foreign policy.
You can argue all you want about tautologies but the fact is they were chosen by a selectorate of politicians who have a vested interest in insuring that the next generation of leaders not only have the undivided support of the senior politicians but are also QUALIFIED to continue China's progress, its common knowledge that their newest politicians coming out of the woodwork are technocrats people with a solid grasp on economics and their effects on society.
I can conclude that the very much unique Chinese political system is better then any other system thats far tried because so far there's is working with no real signs of it failing anytime soon, their obstacles while substantial are no different then what any other developing nation historical had to go through.
There are facts that show they're doing a good job and reliable opinion polls that show that they do have the 'mandate of heaven' as it were.
IP: Logged |
quote:Except of course we have an actual system in practice to draw results from,
What a fallacious proof. If I run a totalitarian nation of slavers, and regardless as to our human rights abuses we produce a high total of graduates and we have high economic gains, does this excuse the methods we have used, ostensibly, to secure these gains? Does it justify my crackdown on free media? Does it justify my removal of democracy? Does it justify my slavery? By inextricably tying the practices of the chinese communist party as a whole-package deal that is 'evidenced' by the outcome, you do this. It's shallow.
You have figures, but they don't act as the proof you want it to be. The figure of graduates isn't even a figure per capita (china's is dismally low). From the 'actual system in practice to draw results from,' you make the introductory mistake of in many ways simply trusting the Communist Party to represent itself fairly. Yes, according to the CCP, the CCP is doing awesome, and <insert glowing future prognosis here>. So, according to Blayne, the CCP is doing awesome. Awesome enough to justify authoritarian repression of speech, press, and conclusively showing that democracy is simply not an option. That, in fact, the size of the populous itself justifies exactly what the Chinese government does. When pressed further, you even assert that they're okay because they're not as bad as North Korea.
Honestly, it's hard to come off worse. You have consistently shown yourself unable to credibly interpret the issues when it comes to objects of your obsession, and the CCP is no exception.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...no government can accomplish what they did with a political system split down the middle on partisan lines or maintain a consistent foreign policy.
See, this is the sort of world view that actually makes me angry as opposed to irritated, confused, or amused: 'it's OK if it gets results'. I sometimes forget that that's what is at the heart of Blayne's constant PRC apologia.
The PRC isn't some country in a turn-based strategy game like Europa Univerpermissive' to 'repressive', the only consideration isn't, "Did it pay off?"
And of course, hey, lookit all that not answering my question about Internet usage Blayne did. It's things like that that go past irritating, too: they hint that he knows enough to know that the PRC actually is repressive...but it's OK, because he's not actually being repressed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if you accept "it's okay if it gets results" at face value, the connections between the practices in question and the results in question are often spurious. I mean, if someone wants to make a complex, evidenced social study clearly outlining how china's economic growth essentially requires repression and manufactured state-media reality — anything so causal, actually — then, great. Right now, that connection does not exist as asserted!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mine, yes. I cannot answer for Blayne (although I would really hope they'd be different)
In what way would they be different? Assuming you had the same amount of free time, that is.
(been busy)
You misunderstand.
Your question was whether my posting habits would be the same if I lived in China. Assuming that I had the same amount of free time, my answer was "yes." As in they wouldn't change. As in they didn't change when I was there and they likely wouldn't change even if I was living there for an extended period of time.
The firewall policies don't generally apply to middle-class Chinese on the mainland, let alone Canadian citizens or Hong Kong citizens living in Hong Kong. Furthermore, knowledge of countermeasures such as proxy servers, Tor, and the like are pretty common-knowledge since consequences to their use are quite rare.
From what I understand and based on the latest censorship directives, you'd probably have a better chance of rendering me unable to post on Hatrack if you posted a lot of porn and child pornography, rather than anything to do with June 4th for example (especially in English).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary: There's no need to mock Blayne, nicknames are especially unnecessary. edit: (This is in regards to your last post on the previous page.)
Blayne: The early United States congress had the exact same dilemma with "Extending the vote = stupid people voting." We've had it both ways and it is reasonable to believe that giving everyone the vote is still better than any sort of check on the populace yet devised.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... As far as we know, these polls are of state manufacture.
Cite them, or they have no bearing.
quote:According to the polls of the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme, the Hong Kong people have increased their trust in the central government, often even more than their own HK SAR government. According to the latest poll in April, only 43% of the Hong Kong people have confidence in the Hong Kong SAR government but 56.9% have confidence in the central government. Among the respondents, 91% approved and have confidence in the future of China. This high degree of approval and trust in China and the central government is very much unexpected at the time when Hong Kong was returned to China. It is vastly different from when the future of Hong Kong was first discussed between Great Britain and China in the 1980's. These changes are directly related to the rapid economic development of China and the state policies towards Hong Kong. Based upon these developments, the people of Hong Kong will continue to increase their identification and approval of China and its government. However, the attitude of the Hong Kong people towards the June 4th incident is completely different from that of the central government.
The Hong Kong University Public Opinion Programme poll at the end of last month showed that 61.2% of the respondents supported the reversal of the June 4th incident, which was 12% higher than last year as well as the new high since 1997. Also, 68.9% of the respondents believed that the central government had acted wrongfully, and that is a 13 year high and 10.9% more than last year. Only 12.8% thought that the central government did the right thing, which was 2.1% less than the year before. 55.5% thought that the Beijing students acted properly, which was 5.4% higher than last year and also a high since 1994. 18.9% thought that the Beijing students acted improperly, which was 3.9% higher.
In general, Blayne is actually correct about the polling data. While this data is only for Hong Kong (which benefits from a free polling environment) it is consistent with the fact that Chinese citizens usually display a fairly consistent level of satisfaction and optimism about the future in Gallup polls on the subject.
Additionally, this data is generally consistent with my own experiences and conversations. While Chinese have many criticisms about specific government policies, such as June 4th noted above. You will find that it is a minority that want revolution or to change the government outright ("mandate of heaven" as Blayne puts it).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: But 43.1% of Hong Kong people do not trust the government. As for 91% approval, that's a statement of faith in the Chinese race, not just the government. It's like asking Americans if they have faith that their country will progress in the future. Besides a few loud mouths, most people will agree to that.
People in Hong Kong have always been enormously sympathetic to the June 4th incident. They still hold yearly candlelight vigils, and they are properly educated on the event, so of course approval of that incident should increase if those things remain constant.
Hong Kong cannot comprehensively represent Mainland Chinese opinion on the events of June 4th, especially when Mainlanders are misinformed systematically in their schools concerning the whole affair. In general I think they will of course be optimistic as things are genuinely improving in China. As long as Mainlanders feel like their standard of living is noticeably improving they will be fine. If it deteriorates for a long period of time (few years) I'm not so sure, especially if Hong Kong manages to remain unburdened.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most strikingly, China heads the list of countries that are, on balance, satisfied with the way things are going at home. More than seven-in-ten Chinese citizens (72%) express satisfaction with their national condition, while fewer than one-in-five (19%) are dissatisfied. These figures represent a sharp improvement from 2002, when only 48% said they were satisfied with their country while 33% were not. On this score, China far outstrips India, where only 41% say they are content with national conditions. And in China, the level of satisfaction is more than three times higher than in Russia, where only 23% are pleased with their country's direction.
For a democratic poll on a Communist government, I'd say a majority of trust is spectacularly good.
quote: Hong Kong cannot comprehensively represent Mainland Chinese opinion on the events of June 4th, especially when Mainlanders are misinformed systematically in their schools concerning the whole affair.
Of course they cannot comprehensively represent mainland Chinese opinion, but it is still better than the nothing that others have brought to the table in countering Blayne on that point.
Additionally, while Mainlanders may be misinformed on an education level, I disagree that the propaganda is all that effective.
My own personal experiences combined with stuff like PBS's Tankman program and reporting on the recent anniversary of June 4th indicate to me that the effectiveness of hiding the truth is quite low.
You can't stop the signal so to speak Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: But trust on the part of the Hong Kong people is essentially, "Keep letting *our* government make all the key decisions." It's because the Mainland government is not completely involved in the things that directly impact people in Hong Kong that they can remain popular while the Hong Kong government takes the brunt of people's frustration.
quote:but it is still better than the nothing that others have brought to the table in countering Blayne on that point.
Perhaps, but only in that when using any range for a scale, 1 is better than 0. The fact we cannot use unbiased polls to gauge Chinese sentiment is an insurmountable obstacle of very strong import.
quote:You can't stop the signal so to speak.
I want you to be right. People in the US have unrestricted access to basic information, and yet fundamental elements in their education are missing. Trust in one's government informs whether somebody believes what they are being told by one's government.
I confess though, I do not have much experience discussing politics with mainlanders. I usually avoided the subject when I visited so as to not get them in trouble. But that was back in the 90's. Taiwanese and Hong Kong people of course don't have the whole "Children spying on parents" dynamic from the 50's and 60's that Mainlanders had so they are quite happy to talk about their views on things.
But allowing the Chinese to easily leave the country to visit relatives, see the world, have the internet, etc to me represents enough possibilities that perhaps you can't completely stop the signal.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Fair enough, Mucus. Hopefully if you did, you wouldn't be one of the folks who attracts too much negative attention. Though perhaps you'll say even that isn't much of a bad thing in the PRC.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The fact we cannot use unbiased polls to gauge Chinese sentiment is an insurmountable obstacle of very strong import.
It is certainly an obstacle. I disagree that it is insurmountable depending on the question, such as whether there is widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.
quote:... But allowing the Chinese to easily leave the country to visit relatives, see the world, have the internet, etc to me represents enough possibilities that perhaps you can't completely stop the signal.
Think about it this way. Americans pirate a lot of media despite government policies, they also disagree with the war on drugs, and often have belief in the forbidden fruit effect (that banning things like books, media, drugs often encourages people to seek them out under the table). Americans also generally believe that the government is unable to run a universal healthcare system due to incompetance.
However, the common belief seems to be that the CCP is so much more competant that it *can* effectively run a universal system of censorship despite being a developing nation with less resources. That the forbidden fruit effect doesn't apply to Chinese people. That the Chinese underground economy can pirate loads of illegal software, media, and books outclassing American pirates in all categories *except* for June 4th information.
No, I don't buy it and neither do these people either
quote:While the English version of Zhao's memoirs hit bookstores several weeks ago, the publication of the Chinese edition is potentially a more sensitive event for Beijing given the likelihood of copies being ferreted across the border to readers in mainland China.
"Not only do I want to read it myself, I want to buy it for my brother and friends in mainland China," said Chen Shi, who bought four copies in the bustling Greenfield store on Friday. ... "Eventually mainland readers will find their way to this material," said Bao Pu, the publisher of the Chinese book.
"It's just a matter of time. If people take the book across to China on an individual basis, there's nothing they can do except confiscate the copy."
quote:"Zhao Ziyang promoted plans for political reform, but unfortunately his plans were buried by June 4... Still, those calls for political reform have never stopped, and so there'd be widespread interest in Zhao's memoirs."
Du said that despite censors, Zhao's memoirs are also sure to slip into the mainland and then be copied.
"That's bad for royalties, but this time piracy might be a good thing," he said.
quote:It is certainly an obstacle. I disagree that it is insurmountable depending on the question, such as whether there is widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.
I don't understand this reasoning. Without unbiased opinion polls, how would any reliable information on widespread public dissatisfaction be obtained? The method used to obtain it is biased.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that the Pew and Gallup polls run in China are biased.
Or rather, I doubt they would be biased in favour of China given their status as American organizations.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, you know this is not a judgement I would make lightly: On the subject of China, you are as irrational as Ron on the age of the Earth. Sorry, but you show exactly the same weaknesses: Looking only at confirming evidence; ignoring contrary argument; growing angry when your 'crushing' citations are met with ordinary skepticism. I'm sorry to tell you this, but as you now stand, you would not survive my purge of the irrational; it would be a re-education camp for you. And I'm not your fantasy-land communist party which only kills bad people; my camps have a roughly 50% survival rate after a year, same as everyone else who's tried to do re-education in actual real life.
Theism is not the only way to be blindly irrational; you have allowed yourself to go far down the path of the Dark Side. I suggest you come back; it is not yet too late.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What polls do you think would be unbiased, then?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Let me expand my last answer:
One would realistically expect Chinese state-run polls to be biased in favour of China. One would reasonably expect American pollsters to be biased against China, although to a smaller degree.
With that in mind, the Pew poll (which is American) linked earlier displaying a significantly higher satisfaction with the "way things are going" in China than the US should be a fairly reliable representation of the truth, especially when it depicts the opposite in recent history.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because one polling organization is more likely to be biased against, and yet shows results for, doesn't mean that those results weren't biased, Mucus. The second part of your statement, that it depicts the opposite in recent history, that's a compelling bit of information, but the first really isn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Blayne, you know this is not a judgement I would make lightly: On the subject of China, you are as irrational as Ron on the age of the Earth. Sorry, but you show exactly the same weaknesses: Looking only at confirming evidence; ignoring contrary argument; growing angry when your 'crushing' citations are met with ordinary skepticism. I'm sorry to tell you this, but as you now stand, you would not survive my purge of the irrational; it would be a re-education camp for you. And I'm not your fantasy-land communist party which only kills bad people; my camps have a roughly 50% survival rate after a year, same as everyone else who's tried to do re-education in actual real life.
Theism is not the only way to be blindly irrational; you have allowed yourself to go far down the path of the Dark Side. I suggest you come back; it is not yet too late.
posted
Oh well, off to the biodiesel vats with you.
Kmb, you have no leg to stand on in such a discussion; you wouldn't know rationality if it bit your toes off. Blayne and Ron can at least see the dang bend from where they're standing; you're so far around it that the universe itself has changed shape to accomodate it, and no longer has gravity, but merely a consensus that it's probably better, overall, to stick to the Earth.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, "you can see the bend from where you're standing" is not a compliment. Kmb is nuttier than you are; this does not change the fact that you're at least two walnuts short of a fruit cake.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, yes, and turning everything into a joke is a fine defensive mechanism, but nobody except you is actually going to be distracted from the central point, to wit, you're loopier than a string theorist.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just because one polling organization is more likely to be biased against, and yet shows results for, doesn't mean that those results weren't biased, Mucus ...
Oh, in theory I wouldn't necessarily disagree which is why my last post is sprinkled with "expect", indicating that my statements are about probability.
However, in practice I think in either Pew or Gallup's cases, their body of work and their origin mean that the burden of proof of bias lie in proving that they are biased rather than not. For a more extreme example, imagine if the journal Science published a poll about their own unexpected polling result showing that scientists suddenly starting believing en-masse in homoeopathy. I would reasonably expect that they would have done their due diligence and double-checked their results due to how it goes against their expectations, at least compared to a poll done by a New Age magazine.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought this was pretty relevant to what we were just talking about, I'm sure some of you already saw it in the news.
This reminds me of a pirated electronics mall in Hong Kong I use to frequent. Blatant pirated merchandise was on all the tables readily available, dvds, cds, video games, hardware, etc. The cops knew about the place, but they were either paid to ignore it, or didn't want to deal with such a massive place.
Once in awhile there would be a big police raid and the illegal parts of the place would shut down for about a two weeks or so, and then would reappear. The raids were few and far between. Eventually they increased and from what I understand so did jail sentences. The stores simply purchased apartments in neighboring buildings and sent representatives to the major mall to solicit those looking for merchandise.
You'd get a map, and upon reaching that location, another guy would take you to an apartment upstairs where there would be catalogs all over the room. You'd place your order, and pay the guy, then you'd wait and about 10-15 minutes later another guy would come with a bag containing your order, handshakes all around and off you go.
I think China just had another bust, but the ones getting busted will find another way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(We have CD/DVD thing in Canada too. There are at least three Chinatowns in the Toronto area that go through the same cycles of boom and literal bust
And in general, I agree)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasmussen is historically the most accurate and it isn't looking too good for the current situation. Obama has the lowest approval index of any president at this point in his first year.
If you care about Time or CNN....the Chinese worker was close to being person of the year and there was not one picture of a tea party..... There was a goat with an IV and a picture of dust.
The Enquirer has gone main-stream. Michael Jackson's death is more important than Tea Parties (which far outnumbered Cindy Shehan's people...runner up from 2006).
The Colosseum of Rome is repeating itself. Watch the Christians being fed to lions and ignore the collapse of the empire. After all, the Romans in the crowd had a citizen's right to free bread.
posted
Tell you what: you start feeding teabaggers to lions and I'll pay $15 for a seat in the balcony.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
A hypothetical Tea Party beats both established parties. "According to the poll, 41% of likely voters now have a favorable opinion of the tea party disciples, compared with 35% for Democrats and 28% for Republicans."
If you encourage the feeding of Tea Party supporters to lions, you might find yourself being fed to a lion in 2010.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The great thing about a poll like that is that it makes it possible to tell, at a glance, what percentage of the American electorate is dumb as a post.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
98% of African Americans give Obama a positive approval rating. At the same time, Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of the US during his first year......who is dumb as a post? Perhaps, being dumb as a post is buying into a used car salesman's pitch. Compared to Bush, Obama is a magnificent speaker....I prefer deeds over words. Our current president is the greatest speaker (given a functioning teleprompter), but reality defies and people are getting tired of being told shit tastes sweet.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: 98% of African Americans give Obama a positive approval rating. At the same time, Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of the US during his first year......who is dumb as a post?
Okay, we get it. You think black people are retarded. Thanks for playing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Even black conservatives on Fox News admit to have voted for him to break that glass ceiling. I thank Obama for breaking it, now there is no excuse. The conservative blacks will not ignore their beliefs next go around. It isn't a stretch to say that 98% of blacks approve of Obama, 95% are Democrat. Odd considering the fact that Democrats are the party that has historically oppressed them.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop: Blacks make up about 10-12% percent of the population. If I ran for president and every single Mormon voted for me that would still be an insubstantial number of people.
What does a favorable opinion even mean? If I were polled, while I disagree with what tea party goers are protesting, I still hold a high opinion of those who go out and make their voices heard and organize.
But you've caught me late at night, and I'm feeling a bit grumpy, I will say that I have a low opinion of tea-baggers in that the rest of us have jobs and bills to pay so we can't go out an protest like they do. Nobody would ever make that criticism in all earnestness right?
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: 98% of African Americans give Obama a positive approval rating. At the same time, Obama has the lowest approval rating of any president in the history of the US during his first year......who is dumb as a post?
Okay, we get it. You think black people are retarded. Thanks for playing.
I'm racist for pointing out the facts? Obama has the highest approval rating ever among African Americans and the lowest overall....who is incorrect? Stating facts is not an accusation of retardation. They aren't retarded, just prejudice.,,,,"retarded" was your term.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: I thank Obama for breaking it, now there is no excuse.
By that strange logic, there is 'no excuse' for anybody not to become President. It's profoundly stupid reasoning, because one human being doing it hardly means all the other human beings attempting it will do so under the same circumstances, or even similar circumstances.
But you keep telling yourself that 'there's no excuse' in order to make yourself feel better about your own beliefs, without digging a little deeper (like, half a foot) to examine the realities of the situations.
quote:Odd considering the fact that Democrats are the party that has historically oppressed them.
This is technically accurate, but in reality only somewhat accurate. Again, though, tell yourself what makes you feel better.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know conservative blacks who voted for Obama. They didn't vote for him due to his beliefs. Given a choice between McCain and Hillary, they would vote McCain....despite the fact that Hillary is right of Obama. They voted for him because he was black....I respect them for admitting the fact that race trumps principles. The majority of blacks agree with Obama yet even those who disagree with him, voted for him,...he's black. He broke the ceiling, and now I know plenty of blacks who have told me they will not vote for him again.
No need to worry though. The blacks I'm siting are the family oriented fathers....you still have the other 80% victim mindset, absent father, african american vote. The blacks I speak of are no different than I and they now realize that principles matter more than color,.....thanks to the election of a black president. They'll vote for the white guy next time,....Obama no longer represents them.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know conservative blacks who voted for Obama. They didn't vote for him due to his beliefs. Given a choice between McCain and Hillary, they would vote McCain....despite the fact that Hillary is right of Obama. They voted for him because he was black....I respect them for admitting the fact that race trumps principles.
Well, let's be clear here: you respect their honest in admitting this, but you most emphatically do not respect their point of view, or if you do, that respect clashes dramatically with nearly everything I've ever seen you post about race relations in the United States.
Here's something to consider, though: considering it important to get a qualified African-American into the White House could be, especially for a black man or woman, a principle in and of itself. Now I realize you're a working-class hero self-made man who gives more to charity than he pays in taxes and works many, many thousands of hours a year, but you might want to consider that getting an African American into the White House might have, quite aside from the 'ordinary' duties, accomplishments, and setbacks of any president, might do something more if it was an African-American.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
No need to worry though. The blacks I'm siting are the family oriented fathers....you still have the other 80% victim mindset, absent father, african american vote. The blacks I speak of are no different than I and they now realize that principles matter more than color,.....thanks to the election of a black president. They'll vote for the white guy next time,....Obama no longer represents them.
It's strange, but from your posts, it sounds like your life is largely built around working 100+hrs/wk, being a super-awesometastic father and provider, and when you're not doing those things, your time is spent around politically and socially conservative minorities, gauging their opinions and marveling at how much you have in common.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I respect the honest. My first post on Hatrack had to do with the fact that my mother, an anti-abortion protester right wing extremist wanted Hillary to win. As she told me "It's about time a woman was president". If Hillary had won, my mother would vote against her reelection due to her policies.
Do you really believe that Colon Powell supported Obama for his policies? I am grateful for Obama for the same reasons Jessie Jackson is terrified......no more excuses. Believe me or not, the black guys I work with will not vote for Obama again. It wasn't about position, ideology, etc,...he was black. I respect them for admitting their bias. Now they care about their lives, not the color of the president. White guilt has been expunged. There will never be another Obama. There will be another minority president elected based on his positions. Content of character, et all....another step towards MLK's dream. A dream where a black can vote for a white and a woman can vote for a man based upon the content of one's character. Obama made it possible. Obama proved that they are not oppressed.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, he feels tons. That's why he needs to keep insisting that Obama was elected *because* he was black, in the sense that his blackness was the deciding factor, rather than in the sense that his blackness was what made him the person people wanted to elected as President.
Once again, and as always will be the case, mal has lots of "black friends," (in fact, "black guys I work with") who corroborate his opinions- could we expect anything different?
But don't you forget- Mal knows minorities like none of us do!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there have always been people who vote not on policy, but on race, gender, religion, or party. Who can honestly say they don't know someone who votes for a party because that is what they have done for generations?
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
