Democrats Support Blacks...as Usual

[hboats]

Why is it that republicans think blacks cant make up their own minds correctly?

Wow, a blanket statement made without a stitch of proof.

But then again it wouldn't be truthdoesn'tmatter without a lack or proof.

Rick

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the racism in the Meek situation? Specifically.

There is none. Apparently Clinton never made any request, and if he did it would have nothing to do with Meek's "race". Crist and Meek are splitting the non-rightwing loon vote in Florida. Crist is popular with many more people than Meek. So the logical way to beat Rubio is to have Meek bow out and throw his support to Crist. It wouldn't work the other way because Meek is has almost no support in comparison to Crist.

This is nothing but pure race baiting on PC's part, as it was on Kman's part in the other thread, and USARMYFUCKTARD's.

A pretty good rebuttal to your post is the following:

1. “Modern liberalism has corrupted the concept of ‘equality,’ and replaced it with a radical egalitarianism: equality is imposed even when normal distinctions militate against it. That notion caused the prompt skewing of the non-discrimination laws by the bureaucrats and courts into whose care the implementation of the policy was given. Non-discrimination became discrimination, but against different people: white males. The new discrimination did not violate the tenets of radical egalitarianism, because modern liberals, who control these policies, do not think in terms of individuals but in terms of groups. Thus, proportional representation of groups in the workplace, on faculties, and in student bodies looks like non-discrimination to them. That is the rationale for affirmative action.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 79
(emphasis mine)

2. So, while you may be able to explain away the Meeks situation by an explanation, logical though it may be, "equality is imposed even when normal distinctions militate against it."
The left has often seen racism, i.e. a lack of equality, even when the alleged perpetrators have logical explanations for a given situation.

Why should Democrats be exempt from the same kind of examination?

Why is it the black who must withdraw?

In each and every case?

Sure looks racist.

3. Further, it is exactly why I listed ten similar situations, in which the best interests of blacks, groups or individuals, are neglected by the Democrat establishment. It becomes more and more difficult for apologists such as yourself when the examples pile up.

Let me repeat the question:

What is the racism in the Meek situation? Specifically.

btw, the question is open to anyone, given that in all likelihood the OP won't answer it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it that republicans think blacks cant make up their own minds correctly?

That really is the silliest, isn't it?

And there are some folks who think that right-wingers are racist! Can ya' believe that???

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC has never posted a fact.

You're supposed to be impressed by the stamina of her verbosity and her mad skills googling.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is none. Apparently Clinton never made any request, and if he did it would have nothing to do with Meek's "race". Crist and Meek are splitting the non-rightwing loon vote in Florida. Crist is popular with many more people than Meek. So the logical way to beat Rubio is to have Meek bow out and throw his support to Crist. It wouldn't work the other way because Meek is has almost no support in comparison to Crist.

This is nothing but pure race baiting on PC's part, as it was on Kman's part in the other thread, and USARMYFUCKTARD's.

A pretty good rebuttal to your post is the following:

1. “Modern liberalism has corrupted the concept of ‘equality,’ and replaced it with a radical egalitarianism: equality is imposed even when normal distinctions militate against it. That notion caused the prompt skewing of the non-discrimination laws by the bureaucrats and courts into whose care the implementation of the policy was given. Non-discrimination became discrimination, but against different people: white males. The new discrimination did not violate the tenets of radical egalitarianism, because modern liberals, who control these policies, do not think in terms of individuals but in terms of groups. Thus, proportional representation of groups in the workplace, on faculties, and in student bodies looks like non-discrimination to them. That is the rationale for affirmative action.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 79
(emphasis mine)

2. So, while you may be able to explain away the Meeks situation by an explanation, logical though it may be, "equality is imposed even when normal distinctions militate against it."
The left has often seen racism, i.e. a lack of equality, even when the alleged perpetrators have logical explanations for a given situation.

Why should Democrats be exempt from the same kind of examination?

Why is it the black who must withdraw?

In each and every case?

Sure looks racist.

3. Further, it is exactly why I listed ten similar situations, in which the best interests of blacks, groups or individuals, are neglected by the Democrat establishment. It becomes more and more difficult for apologists such as yourself when the examples pile up.

Let me repeat the question:

What is the racism in the Meek situation? Specifically.

btw, the question is open to anyone, given that in all likelihood the OP won't answer it.

See, this is the problem with so many of your responses...you get the answer, and an excellent one it is, and you pretend that it doesn't answer the question.

Not a liberal technique, but rather one of a five year old: cover your ears and shout "I can't hear you so you're not really talking. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!"

Grow up.
Wise up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's the racism in the Meek situation? Specifically.

I've been asking this question all morning and no one has an answer?

Then why are people here trying to make a racism issue out of a situation where no racism exists?

That would be dishonesty wouldn't it?

I would be happy to answer, but first, are you stating that you actually read the OP, noted the bolded areas, and still cannot answer your own question?

The question is, where is the racism in the Meek situation? Specifically.

Hint:

Explain, CONCISELY, with specific references to the Meek situation, where specific actions are being taken that depend on the race of Kendrick Meek.

Explain how his race is causing him to be somehow mistreated, disadvantaged, persecuted, discriminated against.

Explain how a white person, in his exact situation, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, would not be treated in the same manner, by those who are committing the as yet unidentified racist actions you are accusing them of committing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A pretty good rebuttal to your post is the following:

1. “Modern liberalism has corrupted the concept of ‘equality,’ and replaced it with a radical egalitarianism: equality is imposed even when normal distinctions militate against it. That notion caused the prompt skewing of the non-discrimination laws by the bureaucrats and courts into whose care the implementation of the policy was given. Non-discrimination became discrimination, but against different people: white males. The new discrimination did not violate the tenets of radical egalitarianism, because modern liberals, who control these policies, do not think in terms of individuals but in terms of groups. Thus, proportional representation of groups in the workplace, on faculties, and in student bodies looks like non-discrimination to them. That is the rationale for affirmative action.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 79
(emphasis mine)

2. So, while you may be able to explain away the Meeks situation by an explanation, logical though it may be, "equality is imposed even when normal distinctions militate against it."
The left has often seen racism, i.e. a lack of equality, even when the alleged perpetrators have logical explanations for a given situation.

Why should Democrats be exempt from the same kind of examination?

Why is it the black who must withdraw?

In each and every case?

Sure looks racist.

3. Further, it is exactly why I listed ten similar situations, in which the best interests of blacks, groups or individuals, are neglected by the Democrat establishment. It becomes more and more difficult for apologists such as yourself when the examples pile up.

Let me repeat the question:

What is the racism in the Meek situation? Specifically.

btw, the question is open to anyone, given that in all likelihood the OP won't answer it.

See, this is the problem with so many of your responses...you get the answer, and an excellent one it is, and you pretend that it doesn't answer the question.

Not a liberal technique, but rather one of a five year old: cover your ears and shout "I can't hear you so you're not really talking. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!"

Grow up.
Wise up.

Your OP regarding Meek offers no indication of racism other than to mention the already known fact that Meek is black. Racism is an action, not a physical condition of one's skin color.

You have to prove that Meek is being treated differently BECAUSE he is black - as in CAUSE AND EFFECT -

you have to eliminate the possibility that Meek is simply being treated as any candidate of any color might be treated when he is at FIFTEEN PERCENT in the polls, is unelectable, and when the next best scenario for the Democrats is to see Charlie Crist elected.

You have not done that.

 

[uscitizen]

All of us should support Blacks, they are Americans too. Or did you forget your pledge of alliegiance.
With liberty and justice for ALL.

Hmmm

 

[NYcarbineer]

This parallel occurred to me yesterday. It pretty much demolishes the notion that race has anything to do with the POLITICAL TACTIC that is in question here.

Remember this one? Lamont vs. Lieberman vs. Schlesinger 2006

Alan Schlesinger

GOP Card Sharp Searches Soul, Asks if Lieberman or Lamont Ever Gambled

Paul Kiel | July 24, 2006, 1:30PM

Despite a series of salvos from prominent Connecticut Republicans, GOP Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger will not be dropping out, he told me today, calling the attacks "silly."

Alan Schlesinger: July 2006 | TPMMuckraker

As we see, Mr. Schlesinger is not black!!!!!!

 

[Ravi]

Again, PC is playing the race card. That is all that is going on here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This parallel occurred to me yesterday. It pretty much demolishes the notion that race has anything to do with the POLITICAL TACTIC that is in question here.

Remember this one? Lamont vs. Lieberman vs. Schlesinger 2006

Alan Schlesinger

GOP Card Sharp Searches Soul, Asks if Lieberman or Lamont Ever Gambled

Paul Kiel | July 24, 2006, 1:30PM

Despite a series of salvos from prominent Connecticut Republicans, GOP Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger will not be dropping out, he told me today, calling the attacks "silly."

Alan Schlesinger: July 2006 | TPMMuckraker

As we see, Mr. Schlesinger is not black!!!!!!

By the contardation being thrown around here, the Republicans must have been anti-semitic for trying to get Schlesinger to drop out of that race.

 

[Tank]

So why do republicans not support blacks?

Because republicans support Americans without separating people by race.

Unless they are islamofascists?

Islam is a religion or a way of life, African is a race.

 

[Tank]

All of us should support Blacks, they are Americans too. Or did you forget your pledge of alliegiance.
With liberty and justice for ALL.

Hmmm

How do you "support blacks"?

 

[uscitizen]

Because republicans support Americans without separating people by race.

Unless they are islamofascists?

Islam is a religion or a way of life, African is a race.

Semetic then.

 

[uscitizen]

All of us should support Blacks, they are Americans too. Or did you forget your pledge of alliegiance.
With liberty and justice for ALL.

Hmmm

How do you "support blacks"?

Ohh I treat them just like anyone else.
You can't do anything else if you say the pledge and mean it.
If you say the pledge and do not mean it you are just a liar.

 

[Tank]

Unless they are islamofascists?

Islam is a religion or a way of life, African is a race.

Semetic then.

Islam is a way of life with alot of negativity.

 

[Tank]

Why is it that republicans think blacks cant make up their own minds correctly?

Because so many are falling victim to liberal race baiting games.

 

[chanel]

I had a fascinating conversation with an accomplished black woman about the show "Boardwalk Empire." She claimed that the poor black folks in Atlantic City were exploited by Nucky and the corrupte Republicans in 1920's, where they essentially bought their vote. Today, they are being exploited by the corrupt Democrats. I said to her "Guess nothing's changed in the past century eh? And her response was "Exactly." This woman is a renowned NJ. historian.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let me repeat the question:

What is the racism in the Meek situation? Specifically.

btw, the question is open to anyone, given that in all likelihood the OP won't answer it.

See, this is the problem with so many of your responses...you get the answer, and an excellent one it is, and you pretend that it doesn't answer the question.

Not a liberal technique, but rather one of a five year old: cover your ears and shout "I can't hear you so you're not really talking. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah!"

Grow up.
Wise up.

Your OP regarding Meek offers no indication of racism other than to mention the already known fact that Meek is black. Racism is an action, not a physical condition of one's skin color.

You have to prove that Meek is being treated differently BECAUSE he is black - as in CAUSE AND EFFECT -

you have to eliminate the possibility that Meek is simply being treated as any candidate of any color might be treated when he is at FIFTEEN PERCENT in the polls, is unelectable, and when the next best scenario for the Democrats is to see Charlie Crist elected.

You have not done that.

"Bill Clinton’s Role in Florida Senate Race Seems to Cost Democrat Some Black Votes."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/us/politics/30florida.html?_r=2&ref=politics


This answer your question, boyeeeeee?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So why do republicans not support blacks?

How silly...

one is always disappointed when the evidence that brainwashing exists appears on the board...

As I recall, only one party has advanced a black as both Secretary of State, Supreme Court Justice, and head of the National Committee...

And that's a fact!