Page 1 2
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
There has been a lot of talk about this election so which one of these is worse 1. morally and 2. for the country.
Not Voting for Obama because he is black. or Voting for Obama because only because he is black. We are going to see a large number of voters on both sides. This election may be decided more on race either way then on which candidate can actually run the country. Oh yes I think Clinton is out of it. One more question, would Clinton attack Obama to the point he cannot win in hopes of making a run in 2012? |
||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Dumb post that about says it all....blacks represent 14% of the population and probably 7% of those who will vote in the general election
a better question is since white male democrats spurned a woman will they spurn a black male in the general election my guess you bet and your sexist comment about Clinton needs no retort.........she is wanting good for America..........NOT YOU |
|||
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
Why is it a dumb post, a question was asked do you know anyone that wuld not vote for a Obama or Clinton due to race or gender. Well voting agaist someone for that reason is just as bad as voting for them because of it.
|
|||
|
Hall of Famer |
It's probably worse to not vote for a guy, just because it's negative. It's like voting for a candidate simply because he goes to church. Is that a good reason for supporting a candidate? No, but it's better than voting for a guy because "Hey, at least he's not a Jew."
Dennis |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
The comparison would be people who don't vote for Obama because he's black versus people who don't vote for McCain because he's white.
A blacks person who may vote for Obama simply because he's black isn't as odious as the other two. |
|||
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
I don't think there's a "worse" just so long as people are voting. BTW, Hillary Clinton received quite a bit of support from the "black" community at the start of this primary season. Say what you want about Sullivan, but I think he's nuts on here: Here's what now seems obvious: African-American voters killed the Clinton candidacy. It is a fitting end to the Clintons' campaign and an almost Shakespearean coda to their career. The Clintons were exposed in their long-running exploitation and reliance on minority votes. No group was more loyal to them than African-Americans; and in the end, like everyone else, African-Americans realized that the Clintons are frauds, disloyal to the core, cynical to their finger-tips, and finally, finally, returned the favor. A reader writes: I found it striking that Clinton did not even pretend to be courting African Americans in North Carolina. Had the tables somehow been turned and had Obama's soul been implanted in her body, he would have made a show of at least organizing one major African American outreach event there or in Indiana. Obama went bowling in Altoona, after all. I kept expecting Hillary, ever since South Carolina, and certainly since Louisiana, to give her own major speech on race to a black audience in which she expressed sincere regret for Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson and related comments by her surrogates. She could have done that while still stressing that her and Bill's mistakes were innocent in their intent, but that she is someone who looks not only at intentions but effects and regrets the rift. Instead, she let Ferrarro rub salt in the wound. Don't get me wrong. Obama is such a talented candidate and such a symbol of hope to African Americans that he was going to get 80% of the black vote no matter what. But 92% and even higher than that in Gary! She got numbers in the past few states worse than Nixon and worse than Reagan. After what the Clintons did in this campaign, and what they've revealed about themselves, and their alliance with Fox News and Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan, this couldn't be more appropriate. This will be history's verdict: in the end, the Clintons were defeated not by Republicans, but by African-American Democrats. How wonderful. How poignant. In the end, the karma gets you. Maybe it had to be this way. But this final coup de grace against these awful, hollow, cynical people is a beautiful, beautiful thing. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/20...black-voters-di.html Beanpot |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
Absolutely. Not even close. Beanpot |
|||
|
|
Pro Bowl Player |
I am not sure this should be made into a moral issue. Pressed into a corner I would say that not voting for him because he is black is more wrong than voting for him because he is black. It is natural for people to hope 'one of theirs' does well. Really nothing wrong with that except when political moralists get involved. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
The question is no better than your bet. You think that white, male democrats voted against a female (thereby electing a black male) just so they could vote against the guy they elected? Sounds sane to me. Beanpot |
|||
|
|
Outta Work Pimp Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters  |
I fixed your post. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters  |
And that double standard is the core (at least one major reason) of racial tension today. WSS |
|||
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
Exactly, but that is not politically correct. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination, and has been almost completely abandoned by everyone. The argument that it is okay to vote for someone because they are black, but not okay to not vote for someone because they are black is crazy.
|
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
Yeah, that 15% of the population sure does control our thoughts, doesn't it? There was an interesting case study a few years ago in Chicago with Harold Washington. In Chicago (and I would imagine other multi-ethnic cities like New York), it had been a long-standing tradition: when a mayor got elected from one of the ethnic groups, his "team" got ahead; an Irish mayor looked after the Irish community more, a Polish mayor, etc. Not an ideal situation, but one that makes sense: it's foolish to think that we can get past tribalism. When Washington got elected, all of a sudden the rules could no longer apply. It's affirmative action. He's ignoring other groups (even though he didn't). How are we expected to move past race when as soon as a black guy gets elected, he starts steering everything toward black people? Again, there's a huge difference between liking a guy because he reminds you of yourself and refusing to support a guy because he doesn't. Dennis |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
What Dennis said.
And I'd add that there should be a double standard when you're comparing to things that aren't the same. They should have two standards. "I'm not voting for Obama because he's black" is analogous to "I'm not voting for McCain because he's white." And DieHard, Steve, you're not really getting the point. Saying something is "less odious" isn't to say that it's good. If you're voting for Obama simply because he's black, that's not a very good reason. (Plus, he's also half-white.) But it's not the same thing as the other two. And again, we've got examples of this from other races, religions, people with regional preferences. Jews are more likely to vote for other Jews. Hispanics for other Hispanics. Mormons for other Mormons. Southerners for other Southerners. And yes, whites for other whites. Do all of those bother you, too, or just when blacks do it? |
|||
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
No there isn't. It is the same thing. Which is why we still have groups that can get away with preaching racist views. On all sides. |
|||
|
|
AFC North Player of the Month |
What bothers me is that people are here justifing what comes down to, I will be gentle, racism. Ok maybe not. I don't care who or what race does it and I am not talking about people that actually agree with the individuals views and are knowledgeable about them. (I don't have to agree with them). I am talking about the mass that is going to vote solely on race. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
quote:
And again, we've got examples of this from other races, religions, people with regional preferences. Jews are more likely to vote for other Jews. Hispanics for other Hispanics. Mormons for other Mormons. Southerners for other Southerners. And yes, whites for other whites. Do all of those bother you, too, or just when blacks do it? Actually it's not a big deal when anybody does it. I just personally get sick of being barked at about it. And I think if the "black community" chooses to balkanize and adopt some negative social stereotypes that it is not in their best interest as Americans. One would hope that their leaders would counsel against that. I keep a Will Rogers opinion of every man I've ever met. But again, whoever is responsible for attempting to solidify (for power or profit) an entire race in America and has allowed the spokespersons to be the Jacksons, Sharptons and Fitty Cent instad of Cosby Powell Rice and Obama has ****ed things up. Does anybody disagree with that? WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
I don't know what that means. Who are you saying is responsible for "attempting to solidify (for power or profit) an entire race in America"?
And "allowing" Jackson and Sharpton and 50 Cent (huh?) being the spokesmen for black America? Again, I just think your view of what black America is or isn't is so cartoonish and simplistic, and so filled with animosity, that agreeing with you is to agree with so much angry white nonsense. Your argument is also so typical and patronizing: "If only blacks would listen to the blacks white America accepts they'd be much better off." Again, do you ever look at other races with this same lens? Do you admonish white obsession with dipshit celebrities, or morons like Ann Coulter? Do you suggest that talk radio morons or idiots like Pat Robertson are white spokespeople? Do you spend time bitching about all of those white kids who want to grow up to be athletes and pop superstars? Of course not. Well, maybe you should. Maybe it'd help you quit worrying about people like 50 Cent. Who sells the bulk of his albums to white suburbanites, by the way. (Oh, no! 50 Cent is becoming the spokesperson for white teenage America!! Somebody do something!) BTW - Do you know of any other black people besides Sharpton, Jackson, and Bill Cosby? Sure doesn't seem like it. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Or think of it this way:
In one post you're admonishing black America for voting for Obama in such a monolithic fashion, a man who rejects the notions of Sharpton and Jackson, neither of which have anything to do with his campaign. In another post you're alleging that someone has has "allowed the spokespersons to be the Jacksons, Sharptons and Fitty Cent" instead of someone like Obama. Which one is it? |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | CLEVELAND SPORTS FORUM | ||
| Servlet | eve2da013 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Groupee" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Designed by: CreAtens